Carl Sagan, the 4th dimension, episode 20 of Lucretius Today, physics

I agree that that formulation is correct and useful in some contexts I think in other contexts the point would have to be stated more explicitly in order to communicate with the audience and especially to affirm that what is included in "pleasure" is extremely broad.

Quote from Cassius

what is included in "pleasure" is extremely broad.

[Note: This turned into more of a personal statement than a direct response to this thread in the composing. I may end up moving it to my wall, but for now, here it is.]

It may be "extremely broad" but it's not limitless. From my reading, Epicurus's philosophy (as primarily transmitted to us through his writings, Lucretius, and Philodemus)* is one of rigorous personal responsibility for one's choices and a pursuit of the "health of the body and the serenity of the mind — since that is the goal of a completely blessed life." (Letter to Menoikeus) While it is true there are *numerous* personal pleasurable paths to this goal, the ancient Epicurean writers didn't shy away from discussing the "vices" that would make it difficult if not impossible to arrive at that goal. The teachers of the Garden didn't hesitate to engage their students in frank speech to "correct" their actions. It wasn't a loosey-goosey all-things-to-all-people, anything-goes, do-it-if-it-feels-good philosophy. That is more Cyrenaic than Epicurean. It's also not Platonic idealism to say some actions will generally lead to more pleasurable outcomes than others. Waffling on or downplaying some of the guardrails or boundary stones put in place by Epicurus does a disservice to the comprehensive nature of his philosophy.

That said, Epicurus doesn't give moral edicts like "no alcohol" or "no pork" or "no lying". He just said don't talk drivel when you drink, enjoy luxurious food if it is available, and no problem lying to protect your friends. The philosophy stressed the contextual nature of justice and ethics, but it also addressed the practical and expected outcomes of some of those contexts. If you drink too much for too long, you are responsible for your headache. If you are a glutton at dinner, you are responsible for your painful indigestion. If you're caught lying, you're responsible if you get caught. And Epicurus didn't shy away from calling out the negative consequences of certain actions and beliefs. The philosophy provides a more effective and practical way to live than many/most/all(?) of the alternatives, and Epicurus pointed the way without all the supernatural mumbo-jumbo.

*On sources: I'm generally distrustful of Cicero, a little more trusting of Seneca, and downright apprehensive about using the early Christian writers when they discuss Epicurus's philosophy, but we have no choice but to use them. That's why I only listed the three avowed Epicureans in the list above.

Quote from Don

On sources: I'm generally distrustful of Cicero,

I think that distrust will serve you well, and he's the one who most clearly wrapped Epicurus's view of pleasure into the formal "greatest good" formula, pretty much admitting even as he was doing it that such an approach was not sanctioned by Epicurus himself.

This is a pretty damning statement from my point of view, in its lack of confidence and his affirmative reliance on "elaborate and reasoned argument" and especially "abstruse theoretical discussion." (Of course as always I wish we had time to parse the Latin!)

Quote

Others again, with whom I agree, observing that a great many philosophers do advance a vast array of reasons to prove why pleasure should not be counted as a good nor pain as an evil, consider that we had better not be too confident of our case; in their view it requires elaborate and reasoned argument, and abstruse theoretical discussion of the nature of pleasure and pain.

Quote from Don

a little more trusting of Seneca

At least Seneca was not a lawyer -- you never can trust those lawyers you know!

I'm coming late to this thread, so there will probably be some overlap. But I think I have a novel approach.

Don asked the question (if I'm summarizing fairly) whether the primary 'end' of life can ever be described as other than the highest good.

First, a quote from Tony Kushner's excellent script in the film Lincoln:

Quote

Thaddeus Stevens:

You know that the inner compass that should direct the soul toward justice has ossified in white men and women, North and South, unto utter uselessness through tolerating the evil of slavery.

Lincoln:

A compass, I learnt when I was surveying, it'll point you True North from where you are standing, but it's got no advice about the swamps and deserts and chasms you'll encounter along the way. If in pursuit of your destination you plunge ahead, heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing more than to sink in a swamp, what's the use of knowing True North?

Now, that quote has problems (ahem...True North?), but the analogy of the compass doesn't seem half bad here.

An Epicurean might well say that the inner compass furnished by nature will–not should, but will–direct the soul toward pleasure. The compass is not normative, it is descriptive–even the inner compass of infants can be inferred to point toward pleasure.

If an individual finds themselves repeatedly veering toward pain and anxiety, it is not because their compass doesn't work–it is because they are ignoring it, or have conditioned themselves to use it improperly, or they've been given misleading directions or a faulty map (for example, they've been raised to understand that "real pleasure" is in following Christ, or whatever). What they need is not a moral chastising, but simply better training. They need to consult their compass, not someone else's poor directions.

The direction of pain isn't evil, or the "greatest bad", any more than South is bad. But it's not the direction we're driven toward by instinct, and upon reflection we'll probably find it's not the direction we really want to be going anyway. Nature has not furnished us a compass that points toward pain.

Even in consulting our compass, furnished by nature to point toward pleasure, we won't always be able to travel there in a straight line. Sometimes we have to traverse in the direction of pain to find a route that goes ultimately toward pleasure; a route that answers the cry of the inner compass.

So perhaps instead of saying "life is the highest good", or "pleasure is the highest good in life", we should be saying "pleasure is the magnetic North of life's compass".

The closest I can come to this analogy in the texts is Vatican Sayings 17 (Peter Saint-Andre translation):

Quote

"It is not the young man who is most happy, but the old man who has lived beautifully; for despite being at his very peak the young man stumbles around as if he were of many minds, whereas the old man has settled into old age as if in a harbor, secure in his gratitude for the good things he was once unsure of."

The old man followed the compass furnished by nature, directed toward pleasure, through the whole of his life. The young man is still fumbling over a cluttered desk of conflicting charts, inaccurate log-books, wild rumors and legends of monsters, and on and on.

Joshua I like the compass analogy, but thinking about it further I have some reservations. The compass can show us where north is, but most often our goal isn't actually to travel north. So it's a reference, but pleasure is more properly a direct guide. I think this is one reason why True North has a troublesome Platonic feel.

As for the old man, it's not so much that he's followed the guide, or compass, of pleasure for his whole life. Speaking from my experience it's more a matter of learning from a series of mistakes to pay attention to the guide. Using another compass analogy: just as a compass wavers back and forth before settling on north, a young person is still wavering in search of the target but the old person has finished wavering and settled onto the target.

I think I understand Godfrey's reservations, so that has to be part of explanation of the analogy, bit I too really like the compass analogy, not only that it just "is" (regardless of should) but that it doesn't tell you anything about the hazards you'll have to circumnavigate along the way.

Ok this was not actually said by Lincoln in real life? I hope then we will eventually find some real person to attribute it to because it is a really good analogy to our use of pleasure as the guide but explaining why sometimes we don't always go there directly.

We can both flesh that out and also consider if there are other similar analogies. Navigating by the stars?

I like the compass metaphor a lot. I'd be nice to find a "real" quote from someone. Are there any North Star/sailing quotes out there anywhere.